“near-significant”

Candidate predictors included baseline biomechanical parameters that showed significant or near-significant associations in univariable analyses ( p < 0.10) and/or were considered clinically relevant.

Although the NCT evaluated all possible edges between nodes, only those showing meaningful or near-significant variation (p < 0.10) were presented in Table 3 to ensure interpretability and transparency in gender-based comparisons.

All groups experienced improved symptoms over time, with the L and SL groups showing near-significant improvement by Year 3 (p < 0.1).

However, for lesions at brain level C, we observed a significant relationship with seizures (ANOVA; p = 0.002; strain CC002, p = 0.07) and limb clasping in CC057 mice (p = 0.01), plus near-significant associations with progression scores for paresis (ANOVA; p = 0.10) and encephalitis (strain CC057, p = 0.07).

A further one-way Week (8) × Treatment (3) ANOVA revealed a trend (near-significant) effect on Week 8 ( F( 2,21) = 1.652, p = 0.1, one-tailed), with a Tukey’s post hoc test revealing a significant effect between Mild HI and Sham ( p = 0.05, one-tailed) and a near significant effect between Severe HI and Sham ( p = 0.1, one tailed), with both HI groups showing a trend towards fewer errors.

Interaction models that slightly improved model fit (i.e., lower AIC) and included statistically significant (p < 0.05) or near-significant (p < 0.10) interaction terms were reported in place of the main effects model.

By contrast, marigold treated tomatoes experienced a near-significant reduction in fruit weight per plant compared to the control ( p = 0.100) and a significantly lighter fruit weight than the limonene treatment ( p = 0.014).

Post hoc pairwise comparisons of the number of SRCs at different time intervals—thereby representing policy and rule changes—were performed using Tukey tests for significant or near-significant ( P < .10) models.

In our independent validation cohort (12 JMML patients and 6 PN), significant and near-significant (P ≤ 0.1) overexpression was confirmed for 10 and 4 lncRNAs respectively (31%) (Supplemental Figure S1 ).

Conversely, the same correlations were either significant or near-significant ( p < 0.1) for the TTC patients (Time and WHO-5: r = 0.28, p = 0.08, n = 40; Time and ENS: r = −0.27, p = 0.09, n = 40; Time and MDI: r = −0.33, p = 0.04, n = 40; Time and ASS: r = −0.28, p = 0.08, n = 40), which is indicative of psychological improvement in the post-recovery phase of TTC.

Notably, other features such as number of branches and number of slab voxels had near-significant increases in the sham group (0.05 < p < 0.1). 2.3.

We found 14 variables with significant ( p ≤ 0.05) or near-significant p values (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1) ( Table 2 ).

A paired t test showed significant differences at p < 0.05 for HCB and CN and near-significant differences at p < 0.1 for TC and CC, but not for TN, HEPX nor ENDO-I.

Notable near-significant differences (0.05 < P < 0.1) are indicated in the figures.

Variables were examined using univariate analysis to determine predictors of re-shortening; significant or near-significant factors ( P < 0.10) on univariate analysis underwent multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess their independent relationship with femoral neck re-shortening.

In Hsbp8 K141N mice, there is a near-significant elevation ( P < 0.1) at all three time points, from prior to any deficit in nerve conduction through to the age with clinically manifesting neuropathy symptoms ( Fig. 4C ).

Moderated regression models were fitted; significant (p<.05) and near-significant (p<.10) interactions were followed by simple slope analyses.

Finally, the near-significant independence of HRB from income dynamics ( p = 0.102) suggests that behavioral drivers operate alongside, rather than subordinate to, economic capacity. 4.8.

However, a trend toward improvement over time was noted in proprioception measured during flexion, with a near-significant main effect of time (F(1,46.0) = 2.767, p = 0.103).

None of the other comparisons between single patients and the respective control groups revealed significant or near-significant differences with respect to saccade latencies and error rates (all p >.104).

Both groups displayed similar healthcare utilization patterns, though the χ2 test produced a near-significant result (χ2 = 4.490, P = 0.106).

Candidate factors associated with poor overall survival were distant tumours (HR = 2.85, 95% CI 1.77–4.59, p < 0.001), while improved overall survival was near-significant for patients with non-measurable contrast-enhancing residual tumour (HR = 0.68 [0.43–1.09], p = 0.11).

4.55 Gy [18.7%]; p < 0.001), as opposed to near-significant reductions in D 2cc at sigmoid colon (15.1%; p = 0.11) and at small bowel (10.5%; p = 0.14).

Experimental increases in 11KT levels were reflected in near-significant main effects on HSI ( F 3,20 = 2.258, P = 0.113; Fig. 2 B) and GSI ( F 3,20 = 3.010, P = 0.054; Fig. 2 C), but less so on oocyte diameter ( F 3,20 = 0.561, P = 0.647; Fig. 2 D); moreover, when defining dose as a continuous, rather than as a fixed variable, significant associations between implant dose and HSI ( R 2 = 0.19; P = 0.033) and GSI ( R 2 = 0.29; P = 0.007) were found (see Fig. 2 B and C).

Additionally, a near-significant difference was observed for the number of hours spent standing (p = 0.120), where those standing 6-10 hours had a slightly higher percentage of pain (60.2%) compared to those standing 3-6 hours (51.9%).